4.5 Article

Development, Comparison, and Validation of Real-Time and Conventional PCR Tools for the Detection of the Fungal Pathogens Causing Brown Spot and Red Band Needle Blights of Pine

期刊

PHYTOPATHOLOGY
卷 100, 期 1, 页码 105-114

出版社

AMER PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1094/PHYTO-100-1-0105

关键词

-

资金

  1. Direction Generale de l'Alimentation, Sous Direction de la Qualite et de la Protection des Vegetaux (Ministry of Agriculture, France), INRA
  2. ANR [ANR 07-BDIV-003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dothistroma pini, D. septosporum, and Lecanosticta acicola are fungal pathogens that cause severe foliage diseases in conifers. All three pathogens are listed as quarantine organisms in numerous countries throughout the world and, thus, are subject to specific monitoring. Detection and identification of these pathogens still often relies on cumbersome and unsatisfactory methods that are based upon the morphological characterization of fungal fruiting bodies and conidia. In this study, we present the development of several new molecular tools that enable a rapid and specific in planta detection of each of these pathogens. Several DNA extraction procedures starting from infected needles were compared and four commercial DNA extraction kits provided DNA of satisfactory quality for amplification by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). In addition, we developed several sets of conventional PCR primers, dual-labeled probes (DLPs), and duplex-scorpion probes (DSPs), all of which targeted each pathogen. Their ability to detect the pathogens in a series of naturally infected needle samples was compared. The quadruplex DLP real-time assay proved to be more sensitive than the DSP assay and conventional PCR but the two real-time probe formats yielded identical results in the naturally infected samples. Both real-time assays proved to be significantly superior to the technique of humid chamber incubation, which often failed to produce spores for the accurate identification of the pathogens.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据